Okay, I have not read the Dreamcatcher book, but I saw the film on tv one day, and it seemed okay. Not great, but the effects were good and the acting was decent, but I usually see comments like this was the worst film made out of a King book. Is this because it changed a lot(Which I wouldn't know), or because of the quality of the film itself?

24.192.88.94

07:48:01 PM Mar 10th 2011

That movie was a train wreck. Was not very faithful to the book, and as a movie it had terrible pacing and plotting. Parts of the book, like the shit weasels and Mr. Gray the alien's stupid accent, simply didn't translate well into the film medium. They ruined the ending. The characters were not interesting as they were in the book, especially the villain, Kurtz. The script was BAD and since they basically cherry picked details from the book it came across as confusing and full of plot holes (example: the relationship of the Mr. Gray aliens to the shit weasels and the mold is explained in the book but not the movie).

To give some measure of the failure, they managed to fuck up having Morgan Freeman in the movie by miscasting him horribly as Kurtz. Freeman's just naturally too lovable to accept as a psychotic General Ripper sort of character, and the book character is nothing like him. He doesn't come across as intimidating or insane like he's supposed to, just sort of grouchy.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy